An apology is only as sincere as the voice that delivers it—and the people who stand behind it.
In moments of public reckoning, we often hear institutions, governments, and communities issue apologies for past harms. They say things like:
“We apologize for the injustice done in our name.”
“We acknowledge our institution’s role in this harm.”
“We offer our sincere regret as a people, as a church, as a nation.”
But behind these statements lies a thorny and often unspoken question:
Who, exactly, has the right to say this?
Who has the moral standing to speak on behalf of an entire group?
And what does it mean when that voice is delegated?
In I Was Wrong: The Meanings of Apologies, philosopher Nick Smith delves into this dilemma—exploring the crucial relationship between collective apologies, standing, and delegation. Because if the wrong voice speaks, the apology can lose its meaning. It may even do more harm than good.
What Is Moral Standing in Apology?
Moral standing means the speaker has a legitimate right to apologize. Not just rhetorically, but ethically.
In individual apologies, this is straightforward: the person who caused harm offers the apology. But in collective settings—governments, corporations, schools, religious bodies—things are less clear.
The speaker may be:
- A current leader apologizing for actions taken decades or centuries ago
- An institutional figure who was not personally involved
- A representative chosen through political or bureaucratic processes
- A group elder, spiritual figure, or symbolic voice
And that leads to essential questions:
- Can someone apologize for harm they didn’t personally commit?
- Can a group be truly sorry if its members are divided or unaware?
- Does the apology carry weight if the people it represents haven’t acknowledged the wrong?
Smith’s answer is nuanced. Yes, collective apology is possible—but only if standing and delegation are handled with moral care.
The Risk of False Standing
If someone speaks on behalf of a group without true moral or democratic authority, the apology can feel manipulative or empty. Survivors and descendants of victims might ask:
“Who are you to speak for them?”
“Who authorized this apology?”
“Does your community even support these words?”
This happens when:
- A president apologizes on behalf of a divided nation
- A university issues a statement while many of its stakeholders resist change
- A church hierarchy apologizes while lower ranks continue to deny wrongdoing
In such cases, the apology may appear more like a public relations maneuver than a sincere expression of remorse. It may be rejected—not because the apology was unnecessary, but because the speaker lacked standing.
Delegation and Its Limits
When collectives act, they often do so through delegation—appointing a spokesperson to represent the group. In apologies, this may be a government official, a CEO, or a bishop.
But delegation must be done with care. It must be:
- Transparent — Who authorized this apology? Were members consulted?
- Credible — Does the speaker have a history of integrity and involvement?
- Endorsed — Do the group’s members, especially those most implicated, support the message?
Without this, the apology may be procedurally correct but morally hollow.
Delegation is not a way to escape blame—it’s a way to organize responsibility. The delegate must not speak instead of the group, but on behalf of a community that accepts its shared role in the harm.
What Makes Standing Legitimate?
Smith suggests that standing in collective apologies depends on several factors:
- Continuity — The group that caused the harm still exists and has institutional continuity (e.g., a university still operating under the same name).
- Membership — The members of the group understand and accept their collective identity and legacy.
- Authority — The person speaking has been clearly and credibly chosen to do so.
- Moral clarity — The apology names the harm, expresses regret, and commits to repair.
When these conditions are met, standing is earned—not assumed. The apology becomes not just symbolic, but morally meaningful.
Why This Matters
In an age of institutional distrust, how an apology is delivered is just as important as what it says.
If the wrong voice speaks, victims may feel silenced.
If no one speaks, the harm remains unacknowledged.
But if the apology is offered by someone with true standing—authorized, informed, and morally grounded—it can begin a process of healing that includes everyone:
The harmed.
The heirs.
The bystanders.
And the future.
Reflection Questions for Readers:
- Have you ever heard a collective apology that felt disconnected from the group it represented? What made it ring hollow?
- Are there groups you belong to that might need to apologize? Who would have the standing to speak—and who wouldn’t?
- What does it look like to say: “We accept our history, and we authorize someone to speak for us—not to excuse, but to repair”?
The Voice Must Match the Responsibility
A true apology—especially from a collective—is not about finding the right words.
It’s about finding the right voice.
Not a lone actor seeking headlines.
Not a reluctant bureaucrat reading a script.
But someone standing firmly on behalf of a group that is ready to own its past and reshape its future.
Because when apology is real, it sounds like more than sorrow.
It sounds like we mean this.
And we’re ready to change.